Labeling Theory and the Social Construction of Deviance
Labeling Theory, a sociological theory, derives from the “social interaction” approach in social psychology. Labelling theory is the most significant methodology for recognizing the behaviour of deviants and criminals. Labelling theoreticians are concerned with why and how certain actions are described as criminal; no action is fundamentally criminal itself. For the labeling theoretician, no action is deviant in itself; deviance is a social concept. Therefore, a person or action only becomes deviant when people label it as deviant. Labelling theoreticians claim that social control agencies like police and courts influence the labeling of specific groups as criminals. Labelling theory declares that by labelling specific people as deviant or criminal, society encourages them to become more deviant. The general idea behind this theory is that crime is socially created/constructed; agents of social control label the helpless as deviant and criminal based on conventional/orthodox assumptions, and this develops effects such as criminal careers and deviancy amplification (Scimecca, 1977).
Howard Becker (1963) demonstrates how crime is the result of social communication by using the example of a dispute between two people. According to him, moral entrepreneurs (interactive groups) create deviance by creating rules and by relating those rules to specific people and labelling them as outsiders (Akers, 2011). Cohen introduced the term “moral panic” in order to show the effects of media coverage in making people categorize themselves as either rockers or mods, which really facilitated the generation of the violence that took place among them, which further facilitated approval of them as violent in the views/eyes of the society (Goode and Ben-Yehuda, 2010).
Labelling theory debates that criminal conduct happens as a result of the leading social group labelling minority groups who are observed to be performing actions that are against social values. When society gives undesirable/negative expressions to the person, this influences the individual to accept the label of a deviant by implementing the nature of a deviant person in order to approve the expectation of society.
Secondary Deviance, Social Inequality, and Criminal Identity
Jock Young 1971 established the concept of secondary deviance in his learning of “hippy marijuana peoples” (Baron, 2003). Edwin Lemert 1972 established the concept of primary and secondary deviance to influence the truth that everyone engages in deviant action, but only some individuals are trapped in being deviant and labelled as deviant (Akers, 2011). Primary deviance denotes actions that have not been widely labelled and are thus tiny reactions, while secondary deviance denotes deviance that is the consequence of others’ feedback, which is significant. Edwin concluded that it was a social burden to express themselves better in society, which led to some persons having difficulties with stuttering (Akers, 2011).
In society, labelling can play a significant role in how people interact with other individuals daily. Labelling is the procedure of giving a single name/label that they have not selected for themselves. Labelling theory is related to the negative significance and usually turns around deviance. Therefore, deviant conduct is criminal, resulting in authorized issues/ramifications. The best example of negative deviance is Hunger Games. Basically, Hunger Games is an interesting movie in which a person has to kill and fight others until only one individual is left, who will be the champion, providing assets for his/her district and making it rich. Peeta and Katniss were the last two people; they went against the system of the games, and that single deed changed the entire game. In Hunger Games, both performed in a way that was unsuccessful in achieving the accepted values. In the opinion of society and the government, they were showing negative deviance. They refused to approve of the rules even though everyone else did what society said. They refused both the established cultural objectives and the established means of obtaining those goals. The Hunger Games encourages social change and challenges norms because the characters are determined not to conform, expressing that they will not fight to murder each other just for others’ fun.
Nick Cohen said, “One law for the rich, no law for the poor“. Law is not applied equally to all because the system of justice does not protect the weak against the strong. On the other hand, in backward areas, these same events might be viewed as bent to juvenile delinquency, which recommends that”discrimination of race and class” plays an important part in the procedure of allocating labels of deviance. Likewise, statistics express that police murder Black people in greater numbers than Whites, even when they are defenceless and have performed no crime, suggesting that the misuse of deviant labels as a result of ethnic stereotypes is a tragedy (Stevens, 2007).
Strengths, Limitations, and Continuing Relevance of Labeling Theory
There are many strengths of the labelling theory. Firstly, sociological and labelling theories have helped to produce a great deal of successive research into the results of labelling, e.g., Rist in 1970 exposed how negative teacher expectations placed on the working class lead to anti-school subgroups. This recommends that the ideas of sociologists have played the main role in the learning of deviance and crime. Secondly, sociological and labelling theories achieved experimental support, e.g., Goffman 1968 presented how the medication of the mentally sick leads to humiliation. This recommends that there is some legitimacy in the sociologist’s thoughts. Thirdly, labelling theories emphasize the causes for distinctions in deviances between societies. Fourthly, this theory also presents that law is often imposed in a biased way. Lastly, Cultural efforts to limit deviance can generate further deviance (Innes, 2004).
There are a lot of critical factors in the labelling theory. Firstly, labelling theory becomes unsuccessful in demonstrating why persons perform primary deviance. Secondly, it ignores people who actively continue deviance. Thirdly, it gives victim status to the offender and ignores the actual victim of the crime, i.e., the sexual assaulter is not a victim. Fourthly, labelling theory highlights the communication procedure of labelling and ignores the structures and procedures that guide deviant action. Such procedures might contain differences in behaviours, opportunities, socialization, and how economic and social structures influence these. Lastly, labelling theory has been criticized on theoretical grounds; while Marxist theory admits that labelling theory points out important and valid questions, they argue that the theory has a weak view of social and power control, e.g., the theory becomes unsuccessful in clarifying why the extent and nature of deviance and crime are socially created. They also argue that the theory fails to focus on the broad structural origins of deviance and crime. This recommends that labelling theory only suggests a partial opinion on deviance and crime (Spitzer, 1975).
Labeling Theory derives from the “social interaction”. Labelling theory is the most appropriate method to recognize the behaviour of the deviant and criminal. In society, labelling can play a significant role in how people interact with other individuals daily. Labelling is the procedure of giving a single name/label that they have not selected for themselves. Labelling theory suggests that we should avoid ‘shaming and naming‘ criminals since this is expected to build an opinion of them as evil outsiders, and by eliminating them from society, we can induce them into more deviance. Goffman used the term stigma in labelling theory. He used this term because offenders are stigmatized, and this encourages them to perform criminal actions according to labels applied to them (Innes, 2004). In order to eliminate crime, we should eliminate the negative consequences that are given to people, specifically offenders/criminals. Society/culture should take crime as an error committed by an individual, which should be overturned through therapy/rehabilitation rather than confessing that crime is the nature of the individual.
References
Scimecca, J.A., 1977. Labeling theory and personal construct theory: Toward the measurement of individual variation. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 1973- 68, 652–659.
Akers, R.L., 2011. Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Transaction Publishers.
Goode, E., Ben-Yehuda, N., 2010. Moral panics: The social construction of deviance. John Wiley & Sons.
Baron, S.W., 2003. Self-control, social consequences, and criminal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 40, 403–425.
Stevens, A., 2007. When two dark figures collide: Evidence and discourse on drug-related crime. Crit. Soc. Policy 27, 77–99.
Innes, M., 2004. Signal crimes and signal disorders: notes on deviance as communicative action. Br. J. Sociol. 55, 335–355.
Spitzer, S., 1975. Toward a Marxian theory of deviance. Soc. Probl. 22, 638–651.
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
